Hoo boy, we seem to have some very different opinions, Kirk.







I tend to believe that the majority of software sold today is bloated. Maybe I've just become an old curmudgeon (not easy for a 28 year old to pull off ), but beyond applications that DO require a lot of resources (such as photo, video and audio editing software, major release games, and scientific/design modelling software, among a few other categories) there's no reason for an application to HAVE such a large resource requirement. I mean, why should I spend even $30 on a RAM upgrade for a piece of software that I don't use more than (at most) 50% of the functionality (not naming a specific example, as usage varies from program to program)?

I don't upgrade my PC very often. My current PC is 6 years old. I have no intention of even upgrading it (hardware-wise). There's no need. It does everything I want it to. There's a whole army of people who are like me. Granted, I'm not sure how many of us use Apple computers (I don't tend to, though I'm at least somewhat familiar with them) ... but this thread asks about iTunes and Software Bloat, which can be discussed with minimal regard to OS.

People don't seem to realize just how powerful the equipment they have really is. 90% of the computer owners I know have PCs that are VASTLY overpowered for what they SHOULD need. The remaining 10% are a combination of gamers, designers, programmers and editors, who actually DO need as many resources as are available.

The problem you are facing in this query, Kirk, is that you are caught in the software vendor trap ... the resources are cheap, so people can easily meet the requirements, right? And so, we buy more power for our computers to satisfy the vendor's expectations. With so much room, the vendor keeps adding to the software to make it appeal to as many users as possible, with features targeted to specific user groupings. You get a monster, one-for-all program. I think this is a shame, and is a poor way to manage such a tool.

THAT is the opinion you are running up against when you argue AGAINST the commonly accepted definition of "Software Bloat". You may feel that such a definition is outdated ... but there are many who do not agree with you. In fact, I can probably split my technical contact-base right down the middle and put those that agree with you on one side and those that don't on the other. I am firmly in the second camp.

I hope that whatever article you write will address this dichotomy, and not simply dismiss a good half of the computing world's general opinion on what software SHOULD be.

and there are still many more people with older computers who don't bother to comment

the age of the computer and its low ram is not, in and of itself, what makes software bloated. But when software becomes bloated, it can no longer run efficiently on older equipment. Because in spite of the fact that these people are usually reluctant, for what ever reason, to upgrade their equipment, many may still want some of the latest and greatest features of their favorite software. It should be possible to add many new features without having to bloat the software into requiring hardware upgrades as well.



having more and more features that people don't want or use, in and of itself, doesn't make software bloated, but it is a high contributing factor.

consider the vi verses emacs debates. vi users consider emacs to be bloated. Its a large binary requiring many other dependent libraries and a huge memory footprint. When all you want to do is edit a small text file, indeed, emacs seems to be overkill.

But for emacs fans, who often use all those extra features, bloat doesn't enter their minds until they are considering upgrading from version 19 to version 22, because not the feature set they use is still mostly the same, but the binaries are even larger and the memory footprint even greater.

I have and use a MacBook for my primary computer (when not at work). Its at least 4 years old. I hate to upgrade -- primarily because it cost me more money, and little to no new benefit.

When I want to listen to music, I only want an application to play my music. I don't need it to sort, spindle, mutilate or fold it. ITunes is the bloated equivalent of emacs -- I am an emacs fan, but I know when a swiss army knife is overkill for opening my postal mail.

Every few weeks, it seems, the automatic software updater is prompting me to upgrade to yet another new version of iTunes, and each one is bigger than the one before (diskspace usage, and memory footprint). There's not yet any monetary cost to upgrade, but soon I fear I'll be forced to upgrade my computer in order to get the necessary iTunes upgrade to support whichever iPod/iPad/iPhone/iMusicPlayerBackThingy I want to use.

Yes, if there are features I don't want or will ever use, then, for my needs, that software has become bloated -- that includes your latest FTP client, terminal server app, whatever.



So, the question you have indirectly asked is: "Is iTunes adding more and more features that users don't need? And/or has the installation footprint been increasing"

So far, it sounds like users have been saying, "Yes"

<snip>

I wonder how many people are using computers that are 6 years old. I upgrade my hardware roughly every three years, because, in part, for my work I need to be more or less current. I tend to see a lot of people I know - those not in the business like me - upgrading every 3 or 4 years, though Macs tend to be functional longer than PCs, so there are a fair amount of people who keep Macs as much as 6 years.

I can certainly sympathize with your opinion that much software is bloated. I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand where you're coming from. I find it interesting that people who are into games hardly every call games that require new graphics cards, more RAM and 10 GB of disk space bloated, but are more than happy to upgrade their computers often.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

rasied my hand already


of course new game software is also bloated

Commander Keen still fits on a 1 meg floppy disk.

I've never been involved in the vi vs emacs debate, but isn't it less a question of "resources" than one of complexity? Being command-line programs, they are harder to learn, because you have to memorize things, than GUI programs.

I certainly respect much of what you say, but talking about the disk space that a program like iTunes uses is pretty minor. After all, it's not taking up much _more_ disk space, because it's replacing your existing program. And, to be honest, at least on Mac, I haven't seen a big increase in memory requirements for iTunes. Anyway, how would you know that if you don't upgrade?

I think the "installation footprint" - ie disk space - argument is specious at best. I only see that as an issue with games, or with, say, Adobe Creative Suite. Talking about a program that's less than 200 MB on the disk as taking up a lot of space with the size of hard disks people have (even with your 4-year old Mac) is looking at a non-problem. If you're that short on disk space, you have other problems than just a single program to worry about.

As to your final point, I don't think users have been saying "yes". I think a small subset of users have. Interestingly, the comments on my blog are mostly in the "no" camp, and many comments I've gotten elsewhere seem to agree with that sentiment. I think there are a handful of tech writers who have grabbed onto this meme and propagated it, but when asking others, I've found that, in many cases, people who said "yes" then considered what they said, and, instead of just "yessing" out of reflex, came back and said that, in fact, they didn't feel that way.

Do have a look at the comments on my blog post. There are some interesting points there, which have not been raised here.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Floppy disk? What's that?

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

I would recommend you take CarlJung's advice to heart. When you're correct, you look rude; when you're incorrect, you look foolish. Neither is a state I think you want to be in.


First of all, you're incorrect about the gapless thing—clicking the "x" will disable the scan permanently for those files (or at least it did on my version). Secondly, as I've mentioned several times, the fact that it can be disabled or only runs once has nothing to do with the fact that the existence of the feature directly contradicts your statement that "if it has features you don't want, they don't slow things down." Will you accept that?


Here is my definition of bloat:

If program X and program Y exist with a similar featureset, and they both perform the task I need, but program Y runs considerably faster or more smoothly or in less RAM or with a smaller CPU or hard drive, then program X is bloated. If the reason X runs slower than Y is because of poor programming practices, then it's code bloat. If the reason X runs slower than Y is because of additional features that I don't need, then it's feature bloat.

For example, in the debate xed_over describes, I think that emacs is bloated. Vi has a similar featureset, but runs in less RAM and is faster in many cases, and contains all the features I use. Therefore emacs is bloated. Somebody who actually uses those features (similar to someone who actually uses all the features of iTunes) might have a different opinion on the matter.

By my definition, which I think the Wikipedia article shows is a common one, iTunes is bloated. Similar programs exist which take up less memory, run faster, and have a smaller installation footprint than iTunes. I will continue using those programs on my Mac Mini with 512mb of RAM—they work perfectly fine without swapping or requiring expensive upgrades.


Again, this predilection for disbelieving the other person's statements does not serve you well. As a matter of fact, my Mac Mini is only a couple of years old, but I removed one stick of RAM because it had become physically corrupted. I haven't bothered to replace it because all the programs I run, which are not bloated, execute perfectly well in 512mb of RAM with little or no swapping.

Kirk, what I find really hilarious is that here you put up a post asking for opinions about something for an article that you are writing.

Then people gave you their opinions.

Then you argued with them and told them they were wrong. It was my understanding that usually when you did opinion research, you took the opinions and said "thank you" then wrote your article. Whether they are right or wrong, they are the people's opinions, and that is what you asked for. To first argue until everybody agrees with your opinion, then write the article...well, why even bother asking for opinions in the first place?

Or maybe this was all a ruse, and you don't care about the article, but just wanted to start up a good argument? That's the only way I can make any sense of this thread, but even in that case, there are much easier ways to start an internet argument!

A feature that can be disabled, at least in iTunes, is one where you turn something off either via a menu, or via a preference. What you did is, in effect, click on a Cancel button; that X button does the some if you're, say, importing a CD, or converting files to another format. It does not turn the feature off.

What I suspect happened is that, one day, you didn't click it, it analyzed all your files, and now it doesn't bother you any more. If you want to prove that, add a bunch of files to your library, and see if you see that Analyzing Gapless Files message; you will.

Sorry about misunderstanding about your Mac mini; I had been led to believe that there were no Mac minis with that amount of RAM. But actually, your case is different, and it's good of you to point out. However, I can't imagine you use the computer for a lot, because no matter which version of Mac OS X you're using, 512 is very low, and will lead to swapping almost immediately.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Well, I was trying to get people to explain if and why they have this opinion, and to discover what the root of this feeling is. On my blog, interestingly, people had much more nuanced opinions than here. Because it's one thing to have such an opinion, but it's another to prove that it is indeed founded. That's the curiosity I'm trying to figure out.

Regarding, for example, the memory question, I have been trying to point out that, in most cases, such a concern is unfounded. I've said enough about memory management, and if people still think that the amount of memory that any program uses - be it iTunes or anything else (CGoban, for example, often claims to use over 200 MB on my Mac), then they're remembering a past when such issues were indeed important. (Though if they have 6-year old computers, it may still be an issue; I have no idea whether Xp, for example, manages memory in a way similar to Mac OS X.)

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

No there aren't.

I had no computer other than an old laptop with 512mb ram, 1GHz processor and a 30gb hard drive for most of the last 4 years. This is more than enough to do what I needed to; write things in emacs, compile it with LaTeX, listen to music with amarok, play go on KGS, etc. etc. Relatively bloated software like firefox and openoffice didn't work so well, small light alternatives worked nicely when necessary.

I don't accept the argument that I should spend money on newer hardware just because I can - it's clearly bloated if it needs more power to do the things I already can do. Maybe itunes has features I can't even conceive of, and so don't realise I'm missing, but...it doesn't seem probable. And so, in comparison to software which does work on my laptop (I don't think itunes would run well, looking at this thread...), itunes is bloated.

Ah, kirkmc—I see you still cannot admit that there exists a feature in iTunes that exists that slows things down for people who not use it, but insist instead on these side arguments which are beside the point. Now we're in a semantic debate on the meaning of "disabling a feature". It is almost too amusing to watch.


I suspect you either have a very poor imagination, or you have not been schooled in the Unix tradition. As a media center computer, it works beautifully to play music, movies, browse the web, capture video, and even do a little software development.

Very interesting discussion going on here. Note that the thread title is "Do you think iTunes is bloated?", not "Is iTunes bloated?" In other words, Kirk is asking (whether he realized it or not) for our perception of iTunes' bloatedness, not any actual empirical evidence of same. And, since the question is about perception, it's bound to get a range of responses.

So, here's mine...

In general all major software is now huge -- requiring faster processors, more memory and more disk space. I think it has gotten this way for a couple reasons: First, features have to be added in order to sell newer versions. Second, I think some SW makers keep trying to create systems that users don't need to struggle to learn -- they want it do "work right out of the box". This requires that they keep adding more and more UI features that ease the user's experience. This is especially true for OS's. (Whether that has worked is quite debatable, of course.) Third, SW designers tend to ignore RAM and disk requirements -- even CPU is less important than it used to be. If a new SW package is a bit slow (or bloated) today, it won't be tomorrow -- and SW designers know that.

There's been talk of features that you need or don't need. Again, SW tends to keep adding features, because staying put doesn't work in the competitive market. So we end up with packages that do what we want and that do a zillion other things that we don't care about. If you're like me, you learn the bits that you use, and never get around to learning all the rest. This is certainly true in Word-like packages (actually, I use OpenOffice), in high-end graphics, and possibly in iTunes as well. In my work (hardware design), I use SW tools that have vast feature sets -- and I tend to learn what I need to get my job done, and only skim the rest just to know what's there. (The tools are memory/disk/cpu hogs but that's a necessity of their function.)

Also, I wonder if this question is being asked in the wrong place. Go players, I think, tend to be more tech-savvy than the average user. What response would you get if you asked in a forum oriented toward music lovers? I don't really know; but it would be interesting.

Finally, again, the question itself: Rather than asking this yes/no question, maybe you (Kirk) actually want to ask something along the lines of: "If iTunes appears bloated to you, why is that?" And then, of course, acknowledge that this is a request for a subjective response, and don't bother correcting any mis-perception of iTunes. If users see iTunes as behaving like X, but in reality iTunes should behave like Y, then is that a user problem or an iTunes problem?

<snip>

I don't think the whole Philosophy applies in this instance. It is the basis for my own opinion, true enough, but it is not directly related, IMHO.



Not to beat the point to death, but my current PC (bought in 2004) was to finally replace my Pentium that went more than 10 years, with one RAM upgrade 5 years into its life. That Pentium brought me through the majority of my University years, with no issues for any of the programming tasks I needed it for. While I knew a number of my techie friends who did upgrade their system on average every 3 years (which seems to be the average time I hear from a lot of people) ... they were the enthusiasts. Like me, they dug into technology in depth, but unlike me they had the money to try and keep up, or they were avid gamers and so NEEDED to keep up.

However, in 2002 when I was doing some PC support on the side to pay for books, it seemed like the average PC I worked on for non-students (older folks who were not in the technology industry) was about 6 or 7 years old (at which point I recommended they consider looking at a new budget PC, and often built it for them if they decided to do so). Perhaps that's changed, but those were the people I was frequently helping back then ... NOT the enthusiasts but the everyday PC owners who don't care as long as it works.



There's a difference between an application like iTunes and a Major Release Title. A Major Release Title is meant to be a fully immersive experience. Gamers expect the best games to use every resource available to deliver the most awe-inspiring experience their system can muster. It is for that experience, and not for the software itself, that they upgrade their system.

For most people, iTunes is a utility program. It's not supposed to take your full attention, so in the minds of many users it should take the minimum of necessary resources to function. The problem that a program like iTunes runs into is the other software options that it gets compared to by those users. Because iTunes does so much more than a simpler program can, it will inherently require more resources. You know that, and I know that, and so does the end user, usually. But software is easy to install, and end users are used to piling multiple programs onto their PCs regularly. Because of this, end users will ignore functionality in iTunes that they do not need when comparing it to software that does only what they do need. This is a very important aspect of understanding the end user. If you provide functionality in a software program that the user does not need or use that functionality does not exist for that user. Half the things you've mentioned about iTunes in this thread are things I was completely unaware of concerning the functionality of iTunes ... even though I've used iTunes frequently enough.

Hmmm ... I'm starting to think I need to finally get my blog going. Seems like I always have a lot to say.

Look, Ross, I'm sorry if you don't agree with me. I have written dozens of articles, and two books, about iTunes, and I know what it's interface is. I also write user manuals, and know what a "feature" is. What you did is clicked a "Cancel" button, you didn't disable anything. If you don't want to believe this, there's not much more that I can say.

And, as I said earlier, it doesn't "slow things down for people who do not use it"; it is simply an analysis of files when you add them to your library, or, perhaps, the first time you updated the library when the gapless playback feature was added. As the Mac OS X Hints thread you linked to said, all you need to do is wait for it to finish, then get on with what you want to do.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Yes, I asked the question in a music forum, and the answers are quite different, because all of the people there are serious music fans (classical music listeners with large music collections) for whom music player software is very important.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

I do upgrade. I just avoid it for as long as possible.

And the fact that it takes up _any_ more disk space means its getting bigger. I can't afford to keep buying terabyte disks. It does matter.



there's this single program, and the other single program that I also use, and this other one too, and that one over there... they all add up.


yeah, out of the 26 responses on your blog, 4 out of 5 felt its bloated.

I don't see how you counted 4 out of 5...

BTW, the place where the most people consider it bloated is an audiobook forum. This makes sense, of course, because the majority of those people are only using it for audiobooks, so consider that any additional features are unnecessary. (Some use it for music, but not many.)

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville